245
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 30:
Line 30: + +
→Free licensing
: Linus, whom are you quoting here? I haven't heard anyone say that in our entire discussion of this. My comments have been that we should be ''less'' restrictive (e.g., more free) than the Wikipedia license is.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:21, 11 March 2007 (EDT)
: Linus, whom are you quoting here? I haven't heard anyone say that in our entire discussion of this. My comments have been that we should be ''less'' restrictive (e.g., more free) than the Wikipedia license is.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:21, 11 March 2007 (EDT)
::He's possibly picking up something I said. I'm new here, so what I say can be disregarded as far as policy goes, but I may have similar concerns to other visitors and newcomers. I do not know what the "conservative view of copyright" is, so maybe this is irrelevant to a true conservative. As a newcomer, I need a clear guideline on what I can add here, and what I can take away. Ownership of copyright is one core issue in that (moral rights are another). If Conservapedia owns the copyright to everything I contribute, then I can't take those same words and publish them elsewhere without permission from Conservapedia. This could influence my decision whether to contribute. From Conservapedia's perspective, requiring attribution is a form of advertising - when your text shows up on answers.com or in a magazine/newspaper, readers there know where it came from. Conservapedia ''may'' decide to limit what other people can do with it - am I allowed to burn a CD of the entire content, and sell it for $100? Do I have to say where I got it from? These appear to be the "threats" being guarded against by the proposed policy. The "small government" version of copyright would be that it does not exist - all content is donated to the [[public domain]] and anybody else can do ''anything they like'' with it. That seems to work for the US Government. --[[User:Scott|Scott]] 23:17, 11 March 2007 (EDT)